Jump to content


A man you can bait with a Tweet


Recommended Posts

 

 

 

 

 

While he is the commander and chief, if a mission fails, he has little input on the intracacies of what and how a missoin was carried out. On the face of the event, it might appear to have failed because there was collateral damage and a brave young serviceman lost his life. What you don't see is the underlying affect, where strategic goals may have in fact been accomplished.

NM, in your next post, you are right about him tweeting and posturing as he does, this is something I wish he would remove himself from. He used social media to beat the press in the election, but in my opinion, this is not a good look. However, proaganda has always been used in politics as well as in combat or service. It's use or its usefulness, really depends on what the end goal is, and I am not privy to his end goal?

 

Fru, I get it, this appears to be concerning to some but for me, its sensationalizing a point to cause angst, that needs not be there.

DT is reachable by those who make the determinations everyday, if something needs to be addressed. The respective duties of those who report directly to the Office of the President, make assessments, recommendations and basically are the ones who keep a watchful eye on things of national security and have direct and immidate access to DT. (Do I dare say that some of you probably feel better that DT is not putting his opinion out there on every aspect being covered in those briefings).

This process is the same as was and has been for ages. The difference is, Obama was more inclined to attend the events as his schedule allowed or as he felt the need to be involved.

 

 

I won't lambast Trump for the raid itself not going well. That's the nature of those kinds of missions. There's always a strong element of chance, and things go awry. The results of that raid can happen to any President.

 

However I will lambast his decision making. He opts out of intelligence meetings constantly and openly mocks US intelligence. It's one thing to gather as much intelligence and information to make an informed calculated decision. It's another to decide something while eating dinner with your son in law and Bannon.

Fru, you are right on first part.

I can't claim to know what he knows or how or when the he is briefed with the intelligence. I get what you are saying based on what is being put out there in the media, but I am fairly certain, the media is not privy to the inner workings and communications of those who have the clearances and invitations to be involved in such matters, so I will defer to those in the know!

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-briefings-232479

 

You know, I'm, like, a smart person. I don't have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day for the next eight years. Could be eight years but eight years. I don't need that

 

Maybe you do Donald.

Edit ~ Sorry, my reply got incorporated above somewhere so I copied and pasted it in the proper place here: Yikes

Fru, I get it, this appears to be concerning to some but for me, its sensationalizing a point to cause angst, that needs not be there.

DT is reachable by those who make the determinations everyday, if something needs to be addressed. The respective duties of those who report directly to the Office of the President, make assessments, recommendations and basically are the ones who keep a watchful eye on things of national security and have direct and immidate access to DT. (Do I dare say that some of you probably feel better that DT is not putting his opinion out there on every aspect being covered in those briefings).

This process is the same as was and has been for ages. The difference is, Obama was more inclined to attend the events as his schedule allowed or as he felt the need to be involved.

Yes, a President who is willfully uninformed is concerning to me. I'm not sure why that wouldn't concern you.

 

I'm also not sure why you have such unbridled optimism that he is "reachable." When has that ever been displayed?

 

I'm well aware of the process put in place. My concern is the people who are carrying out that process. This is a devastatingly unqualified administration.

Fru, while many will argue that DT is uninformed (which in general terms of how people believe he is running his office, might have merit), you saying he is uninformed is based on your perception, not based on fact. The press can say anything they want to cause whatever reaction they want people to have, but they are not sitting at DT's dinner table, thus, we get what we get.

Link to comment

Trump missing Intelligence Briefings isn't a fabrication of the media.

Was not going down that path Fru.

 

Doesn't; mean he is not being briefed by those who truly make the decisions that he is asked to sign off on!

 

May show contempt to you, might be SOP for how he runs his functions!

Link to comment

I wonder whether the so-called president will try for an en banc review with the 9th Circuit. That would be fun, seeing him slapped down again, and then having the case either denied cert with the Supreme Court or affirmed due to a 4-4 vote, both of which are highly probable.

I believe this is one of those √ and Balance moments, that has been referenced many of times since Jan 20. No need to jump off the cliffs yet, I guess, or at least for those who have not done so up to this point. Things have a way to work themselves out, if given time!

Link to comment

I wonder whether the so-called president will try for an en banc review with the 9th Circuit. That would be fun, seeing him slapped down again, and then having the case either denied cert with the Supreme Court or affirmed due to a 4-4 vote, both of which are highly probable.

 

It will be interesting to see where it goes from here. Several legal analysts think with the Government's current argument it would be hard-pressed to get more 2 votes from SCOTUS. I had coffee with a colleague this morning that teaches law at DU and knows Gorsuch professionally. He has no doubt Gorsuch would uphold the Appeals Court ruling (against Government) based on existing arguments. He thinks SCOTUS would refer the case back to Federal court since the Government's position is not properly fleshed out.

 

It would be very easy for WH to demonstrate imminent threat if any of our various intel agencies were engaged on this (ala WMD in Iraq). He thinks the Government's lack of evidence shows our security services are completely out of the loop AND not in favor of it. His opinion is WH's is more concerned with a ruling that Trump's decisions are not reviewable than upholding of the ban. This is pretty interesting and shows the crazies in the WH right now...

 

I think the en banc review is the only option open if Trump wants to keep fighting it. Should be interesting

Link to comment

I believe this is one of those √ and Balance moments, that has been referenced many of times since Jan 20. No need to jump off the cliffs yet, I guess, or at least for those who have not done so up to this point. Things have a way to work themselves out, if given time!

 

 

 

This EO still had a terrible impact on a ton of people.

 

 

Things have a way of working themselves out for most, over time, some of the time. But that's no excuse not to be proactive and fight against the wrongs being done, especially in government, because "work themselves out" usually takes ages and leaves plenty of collateral damage.

 

 

Hell, slavery and equal rights for blacks worked itself out, you know?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...